4.7 Article

Painful lumbar disk derangement: Relevance of endplate abnormalities at MR imaging

Journal

RADIOLOGY
Volume 218, Issue 2, Pages 420-427

Publisher

RADIOLOGICAL SOC NORTH AMERICA
DOI: 10.1148/radiology.218.2.r01fe15420

Keywords

spine, abnormalities; spine, intervertebral disks; spine, MR

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE: To investigate the predictive value of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging of abnormalities of the lumbar intervertebral disks, particularly with adjacent endplate changes, to predict symptomatic disk derangement, with discography as the standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty patients aged 28-50 years with chronic low back pain and without radicular leg pain underwent prospective clinical examination and sagittal T1- and T2-weighted and transverse T2-weighted MR imaging. Subsequently, patients underwent lumbar discography with a pain provocation test (116 disks). MR images were evaluated for disk degeneration, a high-signal-intensity zone, and endplate abnormalities. Results of pain provocation at discography were rated independently of the image findings as concordant or as nonconcordant or painless. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated to assess the clinical relevance of MR abnormalities. RESULTS: Normal disks on MR images were generally not painful at provocative discography (NPV, 98%). Disk degeneration (sensitivity, 98%; specificity, 59%; PPV, 63%) and a high-signal-intensity zone (sensitivity, 27%; specificity, 85%; PPV, 56%) were not helpful in the identification of symptomatic disk derangement. When only moderate and severe type I and type II endplate abnormalities were considered abnormal, all injected disks caused concordant pain with provocation (sensitivity, 38%; specificity, 100%; PPV, 100%). CONCLUSION: Moderate and severe endplate abnormalities appear be useful in the prediction of painful disk derangement in patients with symptomatic low back pain.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available